It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 8
24
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Garbage analysis.


Stick with the conversation. Argue the science. Don't resort to insult when you're backed up against a wall. Your link showed nothing except further irreducible complexity at the micromolecular level.

You said the microtubules self-assemble, but they actually require GTP-hydrolysis, and also the availability of tubulin dimers to assemble into the polymer form:



These dimers require a DNA coding sequence to cue for mRNA formation, followed by tRNA transcription. These are the irreducibly complex parts of even the most basic protein structures.
edit on 21-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Ding Ding, and round one goes to cooperton with Phantom struggling to stay in the fight with any reasonable counters, lets see if he can bring it in round 2.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

More garbage. You pick and choose whatever you think validates your point. It doesn't.
Garbage.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Looks pretty complex... and you don't understand how it is reducible, so must be god... ahhh... Appeal to Complexity much?

lol... literally every single post... "It's too complex to happen naturally!"... lol... I think there may be a scratch on your internal record... may be a scratch on your internal record... may be a scratch on your internal record... maybe a scratch...

So... if not natural, how did god make it then? You should be able to show the mechanisms god used... show where natural process breaks down, and see the tinker's tool-marks. Can you point me to where god steps in and magics us up some new systems?

Showing a picture of a complex system is not proving god's workshop.
edit on 21-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

And Phantom throws in the white towel with no counters to the science presented by Cooperton....after he asked for it.
It was a good match but we have a winner.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere




You should be able to show the mechanisms god used... show where natural process breaks down, and see the tinker's tool-marks


You can, it's called math and with things like Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio embedded within that.


A great non religious video on this from TED


A great science based video


This video is very interesting and says there is a true conspiracy to suppress the science of the golden ratio because it lends to much credibility to intelligent design....I might make a thread on this entire subject.


Watch these three videos and you have your answer.
edit on 21-7-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

More garbage. You pick and choose whatever you think validates your point.
It doesn't.
Garbage.


No no no, I don't pick and choose, you chose to bring up microtubules. I am simply showing, from your link, why it requires other factors to be in play, and therefore does not 'self-assemble' without the guidance of the rest of necessary proteins and catalysts present within the cell. So this is another example of irreducible complexity due to the reasons said above.

Literally every protein component in the body exhibits this same dependence on other components to exist. You also brought up the 'self-assembly' of myosin. The paper you presented was from 1972 and you didn't even have access to it. More recent research no longer calls it 'self-assembly', instead they more accurately call it 'assembly'. Here is their description of myosin formation:

"Myofibrillogenesis in striated muscle cells requires a precise ordered pathway to assemble different proteins into a linear array of sarcomeres. The sarcomere relies on interdigitated thick and thin filaments to ensure muscle contraction, as well as properly folded and catalytically active myosin head. Achieving this organization requires a series of protein folding and assembly steps. The folding of the myosin head domain requires chaperone activity to attain its functional conformation. Folded or unfolded myosin can spontaneously assemble into short myosin filaments, but further assembly requires the short and incomplete myosin filaments to assemble into the developing thick filament. These longer filaments are then incorporated into the developing sarcomere of the muscle. Both myosin folding and assembly require factors to coordinate the formation of the thick filament in the sarcomere and these factors include chaperone molecules. Myosin folding and sarcomeric assembly requires association of classical chaperones as well as folding cofactors such as UNC-45. Recent research has suggested that UNC-45 is required beyond initial myosin head folding and may be directly or indirectly involved in different stages of myosin thick filament assembly, maintenance and degradation."
Source

Notice how in the quote above they discuss the multitude of steps and other proteins involved in forming one of the many proteins involved in muscle formation. This shows it could not have arisen by piece-by-piece sequential mutations via evolution, because it requires all necessary components to function.




posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

Ding Ding, and round one goes to cooperton with Phantom struggling to stay in the fight with any reasonable counters, lets see if he can bring it in round 2.


LMFAO!! Gotta love the ignorant cheerleaders in here cheering for Hovind. Fail to grasp the science that was referenced and then declare victory. It doesn't get any stupider than that.

I predicted Coop would ignore everything I posted, and no surprise, it happened. Not a single piece of evidence or point I made can be refuted. You guys are a clown show. It's like first graders that just learned addition and subtraction trying to argue against calculus. It's comically bad and pretentious.
edit on 7 22 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

When an organic brain with the span of 50 or so years tries to fathom 4 billion years of evolution...... think about it.
The Earth has been here 80.000.000 times the amount of time your brain will be here, yet you question evolution....?

Life on Earth has been adjusting itself since day 1 and still is. One could even argue that climate changes are more about Earth rerolling balance and us trying to cope with it. Earth will be here after we are gone.

There is absolutely no reason why a mosquito or skunk couldnt evolve these things little by little over 100s of thousand years or more.
Heck... even bacteria has evolve since we invented penicilin and found a way to mutate to become resistant. Thats evolution right in your face, even over a short time span.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: flice

Heck... even bacteria has evolve since we invented penicilin and found a way to mutate to become resistant. Thats evolution right in your face, even over a short time span.



No that was an assumption by the scientific community. If you take a antibiotic-resistant germ line, and remove the antibiotic, the germ line very quickly resumes normalcy and becomes vulnerable to antibiotics again. It is not evolution, it is epigenetics, or in other words, turning certain genes higher or lower. Take for example the detox pump present in this study. The gene that coded for this detox pump was turned up higher to allow antibiotic-resistance, and then when the antibiotic was removed, it went down to baseline levels and was no longer antibiotic resistant:

Source

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium."


originally posted by: Barcs

I predicted Coop would ignore everything I posted, and no surprise, it happened.


Your post had no substance whatsoever. Just you self-aggrandizing yourself, and belittling others. I'm done responding to your childish responses.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423


I don't have a clue what you're talking about - and neither do you. Biogenesis? Science NEVER said any of these things.

And you accuse me of not knowing or understanding, too funny.


Biogenesis is any process by which lifeforms produce other lifeforms. For example, a spider lays eggs that become other spiders. This premise historically contrasted with the ancient belief in spontaneous generation, which held that certain inorganic substances, left alone, give rise to life (such as bacteria, mice and maggots) in a matter of days. The premise of biogenesis had been suspected long before being definitively demonstrated.


I am sorry your elite education never taught you the difference between Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, you paid good money for it....it should have taught you that. But maybe the professors presumed you already knew from your high school education so they left it out of the curriculum. I highly recommend a simple high school coarse on biology that includes a module on the biology of Biogenesis.



Science has NEVER claimed that Life on Earth STARTED by Life on Earth producing 'other' lifeforms.

I'm sorry your 'education' did not teach you to distinguish one concept from another.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




No that was an assumption by the scientific community. If you take a antibiotic-resistant germ line, and remove the antibiotic, the germ line very quickly resumes normalcy and becomes vulnerable to antibiotics again.


So you are saying that all we need to do is stop using Penicillin for a few years and it will be good to go again? So how many antibiotics do you reckon we need to keep them in rotation?




top topics



 
24
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join